So, it looks like the Mac has crested

1. There are mini PCs the exact same size, shape, and appearance as the Mac Mini that have much better expansion. I pointed to the chassis for one. I've pointed out numerous times that no matter how you look at it the Mac Mini has no apparent technical hardware advantage over a vast variety of mini PCs (Thunderbolt is probably cheaper in the Mac Mini than using a card, though I'm not sure). If you toss expansion out the window, the alternative mini PCs are cheaper and smaller than the Mac Mini.And I think it's stretching to say that users are so concerned with form factor that they wouldn't accept a desktop that was only a few cubic inches larger, especially if it was faster and cheaper.

Quote:

Who said anything about wiping OS X? You keep adding stuff to the discussion that has occured only in your head.

2. You've argued repeatedly that it's a good idea to use MacBook Pros as Windows laptops. That implies Windows-only. Besides, how does Boot Camp magically make Windows work better?

3. It would have taken you less time to point out one benefit to all-in-ones than your vague denial. They're not smaller than alternatives, when wall-mounted or in any other configuration. They're more expensive. They use just as much power. They're too delicate for kiosks, so they can't be used there. They're in no way easier to use. I guess you could make an argument about aesthetics, but that's a non-issue. With Intel Wireless Display, and a wireless keyboard and mouse, you could just stick the desktop in the closet or behind the desk or wherever. And you don't have to use IDW, I can think of 5 different ways to do this.

---

It's obviously a bad idea to buy a MacBook and use it as a Windows laptop and you're running from that, just like it's obvious that all-in-ones are merely a way to drive up margins for vendors.

It's not obvious that the Mac Mini is inferior to alternatives, because you have to know a lot about relatively obscure ITX systems, but I've given you that context. You just kept ignoring it. I've pointed out that you can buy an EXACT knockoff of the Mac Mini that's cheaper, especially if you went to obscure Asian OEMs. That should be the end of discussion.

Decline of traditional PCs across the board (save for Lenovo, doing uniquely well, and Asus), but lower decline for the Mac, giving them record U.S. marketshare, for whatever that's worth. Of course globally Mac marketshare remains tiny.

So... assuming Gartner and IDC are in the ballpark, instead of outpacing average tPC growth, Macs are now declining *slower* than average tPC decline. In short, Macs are doing pretty OK within their product category. It's the product category that isn't doing so well... especially if you consider the influential U.S. market a precursor of things to come rather than an outlier.

Couple of caveats: Macs are in the midst (just beginning, really) of a major "retina" transition, which I think might make for some delayed sales until that completes. And lots of people are also clearly delaying purchases right before W8's release as well. But caveat to the caveat: does anyone expect W8 to provide a big, lasting boost to traditional PC sales? I sure don't. On the contrary, W8 is designed to spur *non*-traditional PC sales.

They have, in the last two years, upgraded their iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad to Retina, in addition to the 15" MacBook Pro, so it makes sense that they are going down the line and are going to keep upgrading their Macs to Retina as well.

But caveat to the caveat: does anyone expect W8 to provide a big, lasting boost to traditional PC sales? I sure don't. On the contrary, W8 is designed to spur *non*-traditional PC sales.

Well, I think we'll see more sold once it hits. I know a lot of folks hold out on buying new systems until the new OS hits when we're this close. That goes for Macs as well as PCs. Whether Win8 will boost "traditional PC sales" probably depends on how we define that term. I expect to see a lot of change over the next few years on the home user/super-small business front, though not so much in the enterprise.

I see a lot of "room" in enterprise for locked down low cost moderate performance RT systems, specifically in the desktop form factor. Essentially a $249 part that you plug in an LCD and keyboard, an enterprise version of the Apple TV that can connect to shares, comes with Office, print, etc.

I see a lot of "room" in enterprise for locked down low cost moderate performance RT systems, specifically in the desktop form factor. Essentially a $249 part that you plug in an LCD and keyboard, an enterprise version of the Apple TV that can connect to shares, comes with Office, print, etc.

Enterprise is typically anyone large enough to need a central server and/or authentication of some sort. Yeah, we may see a shift to more mobile devices in the enterprise but, generally speaking, the scenario you describe isn't likely to catch on in general. Call centers aren't going to replace basic desktops with mobile devices. The major downside to mobile stuff is a lack of flexibility in repair, etc. You can't just open a tablet and slap in a new HD or more RAM. Enterprises will have massive inertia to keep that an option as it controls cost over the long term. Tablets in general really require too many compromises overall which I too often hear complaints about already regarding iPads and such. That $249 part is just not going to work on the scale of Boeing, certainly, and is not at all appropriate for most cubicle dwellers.

What you're describing is much more likely to catch on in a small business (my normal target, actually). My largest clients in terms of systems, though, have been quite resistant to them as anything more than a toy. Few businesses can risk being out of whack while they transition to such a major shift in device. I'm hoping we'll see a shift over time in that space. Heck, Win8 brings some of what the servers used to be required for so from that perspective it'd be great but I don't think the mobility side of things will grow as fast as people think overall. Well, it may grow but it won't be displacing traditional computers as much as folks think.

Yup, and you're going to keep hearing it until the most popular Mac models - Mac notebooks, basically, across the line - are all retina. I expect it'll be complete at some point next year.

That said, I don't know how big a factor this is, and I don't think it really changes the larger picture here, which is sales of smartphone and tablets ascendent, sales of traditional PCs stagnant or in (so far) slight decline.

Nilt wrote:

lookmark wrote:

But caveat to the caveat: does anyone expect W8 to provide a big, lasting boost to traditional PC sales? I sure don't. On the contrary, W8 is designed to spur *non*-traditional PC sales.

Well, I think we'll see more sold once it hits. I know a lot of folks hold out on buying new systems until the new OS hits when we're this close. That goes for Macs as well as PCs. Whether Win8 will boost "traditional PC sales" probably depends on how we define that term. I expect to see a lot of change over the next few years on the home user/super-small business front, though not so much in the enterprise.

We will see. Thing is, W8 is best for tablets, where Apple is very strong and they have the most ground to make up (I'm a bit skeptical on the success of the hybrid notebook/tablet - too many compromises), and is going to be most problematic for traditional PCs (just watch). I expect the W8 transition to be very rocky.

re traditional vs non-transitional PC - agreed, the categories are going to get hopelessly muddled with the notebook-tablet hybrids, but my definition of a traditional PC is a computing device that you either exclusively or primarily use with a mouse/pointing device and keyboard. But basically everything that *can* be a tablet will in truth be competing with an iPad and so forth, and should be compared as such. I expect Gartner's rather arbitrary exclusion of iPads from "PCs" as "media tablets" to break down fairly soon, perhaps sometime next year.

They have, in the last two years, upgraded their iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad to Retina, in addition to the 15" MacBook Pro, so it makes sense that they are going down the line and are going to keep upgrading their Macs to Retina as well.

But the iPad Mini is rumored to be non-retina. Which breaks the cycle.

They have, in the last two years, upgraded their iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad to Retina, in addition to the 15" MacBook Pro, so it makes sense that they are going down the line and are going to keep upgrading their Macs to Retina as well.

at some point (assuming this quarter further confirms Venture's hypothesis) you have to give it up and admit he was right. Pent up demand can't last forever.

Of course Apple won't make all product retina resolution so soon. There is room for low(er) cost iPads for example, the coming years. Laptops too. And I guess at some point in the future the price difference will be so small that everything is upgraded including non Apple products.

To further lookmark's iPad mini point, another reason why it can't have Retina initially: gross margins. Apple takes a risk in ruining those margins if the retail price of the mini comes in too close to the build cost, and they sell a ton of them. Personally I find the final price of the smaller tablet to be its most intriguing aspect because of this. Using the iPad 2's screen will likely allow them to protect those margins until they bring the price of the iPad 3's screen down, so we'll likely see an iPad mini Retina next year.

Are you saying a PC running W8 isn't a "traditional PC"? Because nope.

No, I am saying W8 was expressly designed to encourage the development of non-traditional PC form factors - i.e. tablets and notebook-tablet hybrids - that utilize Modern apps. Microsoft is so (correctly!) nervous about leaving this in the hands of OEMs, in fact, they're also doing it themselves, to show how it's done.

That's the whole frickin' point of the thing. Microsoft would not taking the extremely ambitious and bold step of radically redesigning Windows if tablets were not a direct competitive threat to arguably their most important, core business.

Why say 'exact same size with more expandability' and point to something that isn't? I'm not getting your overall point in any case: there's cheaper stuff around? Of course, but so what.

The first thing I linked was a miniITX case that was virtually identical to the Mac Mini. I was trying to make the point that you can buy visually identical hardware to the Mini that is cheaper. But that case was also more expandable than the Mini. If you let me say "similar size as Mac Mini but NOT visually identical" I could point to dozens of chassis/systems that are the same size and more expandable (at least the older version with the optical drive).

Carrotee wrote:

And why argue that 'you can hide the box' ... everyone I know who bought an iMac didn't want the box. Not my choice but fair enough, don't you think?

I'm saying those people made a poor purchasing decisions. If they were worried about aesthetics, they could have done better. Some products are just terrible or lemons, they're bad for everyone. Like the Hummer H2. The iMac falls into that category as do all-in-ones in general. They only have niche applications at best, and are certainly a terrible choice for a home desktop computer.

What makes them so terrible? The fact that they are nonportable? I mean people buy laptops all the time and they have the same constraints on upgradability. The newer iMacs also function as extra monitors, extending their longevity beyond the lifespan of the actual CPU.

at some point (assuming this quarter further confirms Venture's hypothesis) you have to give it up and admit he was right. Pent up demand can't last forever.

As long as one acknowledges Venture's hypothesis conveniently tunes out the decline of growth of the entire product category, and a dramatic shift taking place in computing.

I mean, seriously, the traditional PC has crested. And W8 will only encourage that, not stop it.

Why would the PC market cresting mean that Apple's share of it has to crest? Apple could ship 1/2 as many units nad if the market dropped by 75%, then their share would double. He is talking share of market, not market.

I'm saying those people made a poor purchasing decisions. If they were worried about aesthetics, they could have done better. Some products are just terrible or lemons, they're bad for everyone. Like the Hummer H2. The iMac falls into that category as do all-in-ones in general. They only have niche applications at best, and are certainly a terrible choice for a home desktop computer.

Essentially a $249 part that you plug in an LCD and keyboard, an enterprise version of the Apple TV that can connect to shares, comes with Office, print, etc.

I can buy a $350 entry-level corporate desktop that runs Windows my users already know instead. And why would I go with Apple for this, a vendor that provides terrible enterprise support? The big problem Mac have in corporate is that Apple has clients, but no decent back end services. And it's always more work to get Mac clients to work with Windows back-end than Windows clients.

I'd argue that the smaller a company is the better Macs would work because of less need for enterprise integration. Talking about those all-in-ones again, one of the most common uses I've seen for iMacs is to run accounting and POS software at the register in hair salons and clothing boutique. These places care alot about the aesthetics of the device and they have limited IT experience, and the iMac is widely available, so it seems like an obvious choice.

Why would the PC market cresting mean that Apple's share of it has to crest? Apple could ship 1/2 as many units nad if the market dropped by 75%, then their share would double. He is talking share of market, not market.

True, and in fact Mac marketshare in the U.S. has grown, even as as they've probably experienced YoY decline in sales. But there's nothing magical about the Mac - they are traditional PCs, and subject to the same larger forces that are affecting the product category as a whole. (And perhaps even more so, since Apple makes the product that is by far the most successful disruptive force to this category.) They've been outperforming tPC growth for the past seven or so years, and clearly profitable, and very successful within certain demographics in developed countries, but in the end, they are very nicely designed, premium-priced traditional PCs.

I've been arguing that Macs could very well continue to see modest growth, and I still think that might be true, due to increased acceptance of Macs as Apple has transformed from niche player to industry titan, and how Apple is tying together their iOS and OS X devices via iCloud and UI. (A W8 backlash, which is practically inevitable, may help a bit as well.) Working against that, OTOH, is the iPad, chewing its way into tPC territory at increasingly lower and lower prices. So, those are the forces at work. Hard to tell. Once the retina transition is complete for the most popular Macs, I think the picture will be a little clearer.

With respect to Venture's context-free hypothesis: seems to me about as pyrrhic as a victory gets, if (say) the end of Mac growth dovetails with the rise of the tablet as a personal computing device, making Apple the leading personal computing device manufacturers in the world. You know?

And why would I go with Apple for this, a vendor that provides terrible enterprise support? The big problem Mac have in corporate is that Apple has clients, but no decent back end services. And it's always more work to get Mac clients to work with Windows back-end than Windows clients.

I'd argue that the smaller a company is the better Macs would work because of less need for enterprise integration. Talking about those all-in-ones again, one of the most common uses I've seen for iMacs is to run accounting and POS software at the register in hair salons and clothing boutique. These places care alot about the aesthetics of the device and they have limited IT experience, and the iMac is widely available, so it seems like an obvious choice.

The only reason I even mentioned the Apple TV is because it's HW is similar to the WinRT corporate desktop I'm describing; 8gb storage, ethernet, HDMI, $99 pricepoint, online store, apps, etc.

Essentially a $249 part that you plug in an LCD and keyboard, an enterprise version of the Apple TV that can connect to shares, comes with Office, print, etc.

I can buy a $350 entry-level corporate desktop that runs Windows my users already know instead. And why would I go with Apple for this, a vendor that provides terrible enterprise support? The big problem Mac have in corporate is that Apple has clients, but no decent back end services. And it's always more work to get Mac clients to work with Windows back-end than Windows clients.

I'd argue that the smaller a company is the better Macs would work because of less need for enterprise integration. Talking about those all-in-ones again, one of the most common uses I've seen for iMacs is to run accounting and POS software at the register in hair salons and clothing boutique. These places care alot about the aesthetics of the device and they have limited IT experience, and the iMac is widely available, so it seems like an obvious choice.

Why would the PC market cresting mean that Apple's share of it has to crest? Apple could ship 1/2 as many units nad if the market dropped by 75%, then their share would double. He is talking share of market, not market.

True, and in fact Mac marketshare in the U.S. has grown, even as as they've probably experienced YoY decline in sales. But there's nothing magical about the Mac - they are traditional PCs, and subject to the same larger forces that are affecting the product category as a whole. (And perhaps even more so, since Apple makes the product that is by far the most successful disruptive force to this category.) They've been outperforming tPC growth for the past seven or so years, and clearly profitable, and very successful within certain demographics in developed countries, but in the end, they are very nicely designed, premium-priced traditional PCs.

I've been arguing that Macs could very well continue to see modest growth, and I still think that might be true, due to increased acceptance of Macs as Apple has transformed from niche player to industry titan, and how Apple is tying together their iOS and OS X devices via iCloud and UI. (A W8 backlash, which is practically inevitable, may help a bit as well.) Working against that, OTOH, is the iPad, chewing its way into tPC territory at increasingly lower and lower prices. So, those are the forces at work. Hard to tell. Once the retina transition is complete for the most popular Macs, I think the picture will be a little clearer.

With respect to Venture's context-free hypothesis: seems to me about as pyrrhic as a victory gets, if (say) the end of Mac growth dovetails with the rise of the tablet as a personal computing device, making Apple the leading personal computing device manufacturers in the world. You know?

it wasn't context free. People just don't like it. And of course you brush it off as no big deal. UNLESS it was still going up and THEN it would be a big deal. come on.

Why say 'exact same size with more expandability' and point to something that isn't? I'm not getting your overall point in any case: there's cheaper stuff around? Of course, but so what.

The first thing I linked was a miniITX case that was virtually identical to the Mac Mini. I was trying to make the point that you can buy visually identical hardware to the Mini that is cheaper. But that case was also more expandable than the Mini. If you let me say "similar size as Mac Mini but NOT visually identical" I could point to dozens of chassis/systems that are the same size and more expandable (at least the older version with the optical drive).

At the top of this page you said "exact same size, shape, and appearance as the Mac Mini that have much better expansion" ... so naturally I looked for the things you emphasised 'exact' and 'much better'. Both, in one package.

Mini is 197x197x36mm or 1.39 litres. You linked to Wesena at 197x197x75mm or 2.76 litres and Hebey at 200x225x56mm or 2.25 litres, and so on. So I'm not seeing 'exact same size' ... I'm seeing 'larger' ... and I'm not seeing 'much better expandability: no Thunderbolt, and no PCI slots (obviously, in those form factors) to compensate. Looks like it's 'worse' expandability to me. Something I missed?

Now you are probably arguing something like 'you can get ITX2 PCs that are almost as small' and 'you can get PC's that are small-ish and have expandability'. Or even 'cheap and expandable' ... but why not just say that?

rtechie wrote:

Carrotee wrote:

And why argue that 'you can hide the box' ... everyone I know who bought an iMac didn't want the box. Not my choice but fair enough, don't you think?

I'm saying those people made a poor purchasing decisions. If they were worried about aesthetics, they could have done better. Some products are just terrible or lemons, they're bad for everyone. Like the Hummer H2. The iMac falls into that category as do all-in-ones in general. They only have niche applications at best, and are certainly a terrible choice for a home desktop computer.

If you want a large, quality screen and don't care for PCI slots and GPU-swapping, and really don't want a box you have to hide somewhere, iMac isn't 'terrible' at all. It's better than most everything you would propose. You're confusing 'not my preference' with 'bad for everyone'. I'd wait for the next iMac rev, of course, it's certainly due.

it wasn't context free. People just don't like it. And of course you brush it off as no big deal. UNLESS it was still going up and THEN it would be a big deal. come on.

It'd be impressive, but no, it would not be a big deal. Mac growth is, and I suspect will always be - should it continue - modest and incremental. It doesn't and cannot change the game.

What's happening in mobile computing *is* a big deal, and Android and iOS are changing the game.

re Venture and context - sure seems context-free to me; he's not looking honestly (or intelligently) at the larger picture. He's posted many times that tablets are the equivalents of toys or baubles, i.e. unsuited for general computing tasks. You cannot understand anything that's going on in computing right now if you think the rise of the smartphone and tablets is a frivolous sideshow.

I'm saying those people made a poor purchasing decisions. If they were worried about aesthetics, they could have done better. Some products are just terrible or lemons, they're bad for everyone. Like the Hummer H2. The iMac falls into that category as do all-in-ones in general. They only have niche applications at best, and are certainly a terrible choice for a home desktop computer.

How is it that every 3-5 pages in this thread, some anti-Mac guy comes along who is utterly incapable of understanding that different people have different taste and priorities?

I'm saying those people made a poor purchasing decisions. If they were worried about aesthetics, they could have done better. Some products are just terrible or lemons, they're bad for everyone. Like the Hummer H2. The iMac falls into that category as do all-in-ones in general. They only have niche applications at best, and are certainly a terrible choice for a home desktop computer.

How is it that every 3-5 pages in this thread, some anti-Mac guy comes along who is utterly incapable of understanding that different people have different taste and priorities?

I'm saying those people made a poor purchasing decisions. If they were worried about aesthetics, they could have done better. Some products are just terrible or lemons, they're bad for everyone. Like the Hummer H2. The iMac falls into that category as do all-in-ones in general. They only have niche applications at best, and are certainly a terrible choice for a home desktop computer.

How is it that every 3-5 pages in this thread, some anti-Mac guy comes along who is utterly incapable of understanding that different people have different taste and priorities?

I don't know--why does the same thing happen the other way with some Mac guy saying that anyone who doesn't think Apple's designs are awesome and the best are just stupid?

it wasn't context free. People just don't like it. And of course you brush it off as no big deal. UNLESS it was still going up and THEN it would be a big deal. come on.

It'd be impressive, but no, it would not be a big deal. Mac growth is, and I suspect will always be - should it continue - modest and incremental. It doesn't and cannot change the game.

What's happening in mobile computing *is* a big deal, and Android and iOS are changing the game.

re Venture and context - sure seems context-free to me; he's not looking honestly (or intelligently) at the larger picture. He's posted many times that tablets are the equivalents of toys or baubles, i.e. unsuited for general computing tasks. You cannot understand anything that's going on in computing right now if you think the rise of the smartphone and tablets is a frivolous sideshow.

If you think smartphones are being used to replace computers you are nto being honest. And if you think tablets are replacing computers for anyone with anything close to non-trivial usage is also stretching it.The people who are ditching computers for tablets weren't using their computers for much to begin with.

If you think smartphones are being used to replace computers you are nto being honest. And if you think tablets are replacing computers for anyone with anything close to non-trivial usage is also stretching it.The people who are ditching computers for tablets weren't using their computers for much to begin with.

Probably true, but let's be honest - most consumers don't. Facebook and bill paying. My friend's mom almost exclusively uses her Touchpad for those duties now.

If you think smartphones are being used to replace computers you are nto being honest. And if you think tablets are replacing computers for anyone with anything close to non-trivial usage is also stretching it.The people who are ditching computers for tablets weren't using their computers for much to begin with.

It's not about replacing, it's additive. The things one did once *only* with a traditional PC has fragmented - you can do some with your smartphone, more with your small tablet, even more with your large tablet, even more with your tablet + peripheral, and everything with your tPC (but not as flexibly, comfortably, or simply). And not everyone needs to do the more advanced and complex stuff that tPC requires, especially at all times.... but most importantly, "computer" isn't a yes/no thing, computerness lies along a spectrum. I keep saying this, and it's still true. If you can't accept this, *you're* not being honest.

That's what's going on in computing right now, and it's why the Windows-dominant era is pretty much over.

I'm saying those people made a poor purchasing decisions. If they were worried about aesthetics, they could have done better. Some products are just terrible or lemons, they're bad for everyone. Like the Hummer H2. The iMac falls into that category as do all-in-ones in general. They only have niche applications at best, and are certainly a terrible choice for a home desktop computer.

How is it that every 3-5 pages in this thread, some anti-Mac guy comes along who is utterly incapable of understanding that different people have different taste and priorities?

It's not just anti-Mac people.

It's a pervasive disease among internet arguers.

Phase 2: After the anti-Mac guy shows up and gets called on his blinders, other folks (pretty much always including Echohead), try to create some sort of equivalency--"oh yeah, well Apple people do it too!"

But I don't think that's true. Where are the posts saying that everybody should be buying Macs, and people buying PCs are wasting their money? I'm prepared to retract this assertion if you can point me to a couple of good, specific examples, but this really seems like a one-way street.

Phase 2: After the anti-Mac guy shows up and gets called on his blinders, other folks (pretty much always including Echohead), try to create some sort of equivalency--"oh yeah, well Apple people do it too!"

Well, I was very careful to make sure you know that I'm coming from a place other than lines drawn in sand, anti-Apple on one side, pro-Apple on the other. So I said "internet arguers".

Quote:

But I don't think that's true.

Well, since we're here, might as well discuss. It absolutely is true. There are lots and lots of people on this board who call Android a second-rate mobile OS, claim that Windows is secondary to Mac OS, can't possibly conceive of how it's a benefit to be able to change out your battery with a spare in a phone, etc. etc. etc.

Quote:

Where are the posts saying that everybody should be buying Macs, and people buying PCs are wasting their money? I'm prepared to retract this assertion if you can point me to a couple of good, specific examples, but this really seems like a one-way street.

K.

Dwell wrote

Oh, and I was right on, the Galaxy S3 mini is crap.

----

cecilroytoo wrote

So you'd prefer the girl behind you to stop her video chat, turn off her phone, pull off the back cover, yank out the battery, wedge in another battery, force the cover back on, boot the phone, reinitiate the video chat? Seems like a lot to pay for freedom

..And then..

But you are thinking about it to the point of obsession. Otherwise, why would you go through the trouble of purchasing, charging, and swapping out batteries? I let that kind of inconvenience go many moons ago.

----

benhameen wrote

I unplugged my phone at 6:15am this morning, used it heavily all day including about 2 hours as an LTE hotspot, and here at midnight is still showing 69% battery.

You are more than welcome to go through the hassle of charging and carrying a spare battery every day. I just bought a phone that works.

-----

That's just the last couple of days in regular threads. Yes, I know E2 does it and Venture and probably others on the other side. But really, it's no one-way street.

There are lots and lots of people on this board who call Android a second-rate mobile OS, claim that Windows is secondary to Mac OS, can't possibly conceive of how it's a benefit to be able to change out your battery with a spare in a phone, etc. etc. etc.

You do realise that all of these are respectable opinions to hold, don't you?

There are lots and lots of people on this board who call Android a second-rate mobile OS, claim that Windows is secondary to Mac OS, can't possibly conceive of how it's a benefit to be able to change out your battery with a spare in a phone, etc. etc. etc.

You do realise that all of these are respectable opinions to hold, don't you?

I think so. But I think there's a valid distinction between "I don't find these features to be useful," or "I find Android to be a second-rate knockoff", and "I don't think you should find these features useful," or "if you buy an Android phone, you've made a bad purchasing decision." (Not saying you fall on the wrong side of the distinction, just trying to clarify what in particular bugged me about rtechie's post above.)